Insights

EEOC Verdicts and Settlements

Our report on EEOC verdicts and settlements for November 2009 after the break. November 2009 CA – Lawry’s Restaurants, Inc. has agreed to a $1 million settlement with the EEOC in a sex discrimination case brought on behalf of a male applicant. Apparently the restaurant had a long-standing policy of hiring only women for food […]

Our report on EEOC verdicts and settlements for November 2009 after the break.

November 2009

CA – Lawry’s Restaurants, Inc. has agreed to a $1 million settlement with the EEOC in a sex discrimination case brought on behalf of a male applicant. Apparently the restaurant had a long-standing policy of hiring only women for food server positions.

PA – Ruby Tuesday will settle a sexual harassment suit for $225,000 brought on behalf of a group of female employees who alleged they were sexually harassed by the restaurant’s general manager.

PA – A utility contractor agreed to a $200,000 settlement in a sex discrimination and retaliation case brought by the EEOC on behalf of female employees who alleged they were not hired for laborer positions because of their sex.

OR – Schiemer Farms will settle a sexual harassment and retaliation suit for $14,500 brought on behalf of two female employees who alleged they were harassed by a male employee and then fired after complaining about the harassment.

NY – Eaton’s Neck Fire District will pay $213,840 to settle an age discrimination suit brought on behalf of a class of firefighters who alleged they were discriminated against with regard to their pension benefits.

CA – Regal Entertainment Group has agreed to pay $175,000 to settle a sex discrimination suit brought on behalf of a male employee who alleged he was harassed by a female employee and then retaliated against after complaining to management.

IN – Arbonne International will pay $30,000 to settle a disability discrimination suit brought by the EEOC on behalf of a female applicant who alleged she was not hired because she was deaf.

AZ – Cheesecake Factory, Inc. agreed to settle a same-sex harassment case for $345,000 that was brought on behalf of a group of male employees who claimed they were subject to repeated sexual assaults by other male employees at the restaurant.

CO – Bellco Credit Union will pay $57,250 to settle an age discrimination suit brought by the EEOC on behalf of a female employee who alleged she was fired due to her age.

AZ – Tepanyaki of Clearfield, a Utah-based Japanese restaurant, has agreed to pay $30,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination suit brought on behalf of a female employee who claimed she was fired because she was pregnant.

OK – St. John Health System, Inc. of Tulsa agreed to a $100,000 settlement with the EEOC in a disability discrimination suit brought on behalf of a scrub technician who alleged she was denied a reasonable accommodation for her disability.

WI – A federal jury awarded $105,000 in a sexual harassment suit brought by the EEOC on behalf of two IHOP employees who alleged they were sexually harassed by their supervisor.

GA – Kohler Company has agreed to pay $175,000 to settle a gender and pregnancy discrimination suit brought on behalf of a female executive who alleged she was fired because she was pregnant.

Related

Insights from

Welter Law Firm, P.C.

Welter Insights is a comprehensive national employment law and litigation blog covering recent court decisions, new legislation, active cases and emerging issues at the local, state and federal levels. The articles, written by Welter attorneys, provide actionable insights into the rapidly evolving world of employment and workplace law.

The information provided on this website is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals depicted in images on this website include both attorney and non-attorney employees of Welter Law Firm, P.C., including paralegals, finance and administrative personnel. To see a photo directory of the firm’s attorneys, please visit www.welterlaw.com/people. All or portions of this website may constitute attorney advertising in some jurisdictions and should be viewed as such where applicable.